|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 7:47AM
#1
|
|
|
Now with the current design spells are erratic. Some require attack rolls, some require saving throws, some require both. It is rarely clear or straightforward which method spells will use. This is bad. Not only does it make spells more complicated than necessary and more difficult to use but it also has terrible interaction with critical hits, player activity, and the advantage/disadvantage mechanics. To solve these problems a spellcasting roll should be made by the caster which will be resisted by the defender's saving throw.
When a caster casts a spell they always make their spellcasting roll to see how well they got their spell off. This allows them to critical hit as well as fumble with their spell. One big complaint of 4e players is that being a caster means you never get to roll in combat. Having the caster roll their attack roll would solve this. Lastly, the current rules allow a caster to shoot fireballs at a target behind cover in the darkness while drunk and adjacent to an enemy all at no penalty. Having the caster have to roll an attack like everyone else means they would equally benefit/suffer from the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Now because the target would still have to roll a saving throw against the spells spellcasting would still "feel different" from non spellcasting attacks.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 8:21AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Now with the current design spells are erratic. Some require attack rolls, some require saving throws, some require both. It is rarely clear or straightforward which method spells will use.
Because just reading the spells description is of course to hard....
Me? I think it's perfectly fine to have some spells require a To-Hit roll, some a save, & some both.
I also think that you're being a bit short sighted. Because it seems you're lumping all spells into just the attack/offense catagory.
Would you really try & claim I should be rolling to hit or something with something like Cure Light Wounds? What about any # of other non-offensive spells one can find a real use for once the inititive dice have been rolled?
Now if all you'd wanted was some sort of universal casting check....
But I can assure you that'll just get old quick. It'd be house-ruled away (or simply ignored) like Weapon Speeds, certain weapon effects vrs certain armors, and spell components in previous editions.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 8:35AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2007
|
Attack rolls with combat spells is fine, but a second roll to see if the target can save? Does this same "second chance to miss" apply to mundane melee weapons as well? If not, it seems to be punishing the spellcasters.
I am currently experimenting with a d20 roll to see if a spell goes off normally, pathetically, or spectacularly. A 2-19 means the spell acts as normal. A 1 means all variables are at their minimum values, while a natural 20 means all variables are at their maximum. If there are no variables, then it doesn't matter. If a spell can have a defined area of effect (or some such thing designated by the caster), a natural 20 would not affect that. It would remain as the player defined since it is not a variable defined by the dice but by the caster's player.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 9:05AM
#4
|
|
|
@CCS yes I was primarily referring to attack spells but even spells used out of combat such as charm person should follow the same rules and be an attack roll vs a charisma save. In general any time a spell is directly affecting someone else there should be an opposed roll.
@Shiftkitty: this roll does not cause an extra miss chance at all. Instead of spells having a set DC of 10 + X now the player must roll a d20 + X for the spell DC. This actually ends up slightly in favor of the caster. It should not take additional time because the enemies roll their saves at the same time the caster rolls his attack roll. For AoE the caster should roll a single attack and each enemy in the area should make their save separately.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 9:20AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I've been using a fairly similar system for my own games:
Weapon-like spells (Ice Knife) are treated exactly like weapon attacks, with an attack roll to hit and crit.
More complicated effects require an attack roll, and then a save to determine whether they get the full effect or a partial resist. Any spell with a save on it is going to have some effect when it's resisted, to reflect that the caster had to hit with the thing in the first place.
Physical attacks are the same, with basic damage attacks being a straight attack roll to hit and crit. Physical maneuvers are modeled similarly to spells, with a to-hit roll and a save to reduce the effect, but every maneuver that offers a save is guaranteed to have some lesser effect if it hits and is then resisted.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 10:06AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 24, 2007
|
Meh, I don't like it but I don't exactly have a 'good' (as in the way most here think about it) reason for it. See, I like variety. I like things working differently. Always have, always will. And it gives me some flexibility. If I primarily use spells that target saves and happen to be facing an enemy with very good saves, I'd like the option to switch to a ranged touch spell or something of that nature to bypass those saves. Thought. Something my character would both like to and actually do. In the end, stuff like this bores me. Can't help it, it's just the way it is. And it's not an indictment of the idea, either - it simply doesn't work for me. That's not a judgement, it's an opinion based on personal experience.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.Section Six Soldier Front Door of the House of Trolls If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 10:41AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2005
|
eh. i would much prefer one consistent way to do all things be it casting spells or hitting with swords, either through an active offense/passive defense, passive offense/active defense or active offense & defense.
the main reason my own preference is "action initiator rolls all dice" is that it places the focus of the game on the guy rolling all the dice.
it's a small difference, but i prefer hearing "Oxybe, your firebolt successfully sears the goblin" over "Oxybe, the goblin fails to dodge and gets seared". i'm guessing it's because i've been working tech support for what... 6-7 years now and we tend to use a certain vocabulary when dealing with customers, but if given the option between "player succeeds" VS "enemy fails", i'd pick the former over the latter.
having the initiator roll all dice is the gaming equivalent of doing so. even if the luck gods are the ones determining his success or failure, he's rolling the dice.
the other reason is that having a consistant ruleset "initiator rolls all dice", "defender rolls all dice", etc... allows for easier determination of effects. let's say Tom & Tim are fighting a group of monsters:
-Tom says "my PC makes a makeshift molotov and throws it at the monster to light him on fire". does he roll to hit the AC or does the monster roll a reflex?
-what Tim tries to throw a torch at an enemy that was doused in oil to light him on fire?
in a game that uses a consistant rule for resolution it's generally easier for the gm to adjudicate improvised actions and how to proceed with only one set of guidelines rather then stall the game while picking between the two guidelines for improvised actions.
as for rolling two sets of compared rolls? nah. it's too much potential for failure on the caster's part.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 10:44AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 24, 2007
|
it's a small difference, but i prefer hearing "Oxybe, your firebolt successfully sears the goblin" over "Oxybe, the goblin fails to dodge and gets seared". i'm guessing it's because i've been working tech support for what... 6-7 years now and we tend to use a certain vocabulary when dealing with customers, but if given the option between "player succeeds" VS "enemy fails", i'd pick the former over the latter.
Why does a failed save on the goblin's part have to be narrated that way? If he fails his save and fails to dodge, your firebolt has successfully seared him. There's no reason that the fact it was a save roll means it has to be narrated any specific way. It's just narration after all.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.Section Six Soldier Front Door of the House of Trolls If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 10:59AM
#9
|
|
|
I do prefer attackers rolling all the dice, but I can swallow defenders getting saves. I'm not a fan of the spells that require both. I'd rather see the spells toned down some.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 11:49AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2005
|
it's a small difference, but i prefer hearing "Oxybe, your firebolt successfully sears the goblin" over "Oxybe, the goblin fails to dodge and gets seared". i'm guessing it's because i've been working tech support for what... 6-7 years now and we tend to use a certain vocabulary when dealing with customers, but if given the option between "player succeeds" VS "enemy fails", i'd pick the former over the latter.
Why does a failed save on the goblin's part have to be narrated that way? If he fails his save and fails to dodge, your firebolt has successfully seared him. There's no reason that the fact it was a save roll means it has to be narrated any specific way. It's just narration after all.
then ignore the narration is fluff then. in essence it comes down to:
"Oxybe rolls & hits the goblin" VS "Goblin rolls & fails his save"
in both cases it's luck that determines if the goblin is lit on fire, but the first one puts the illusion of succeess & failure in action's initiator's hands by having them roll the dice. when working tech support you want to give the customer the illusion that they are the smartest person around by making it sound like they're doing all the impressive work, even if it simply amounts to "turn your computer on & off by pushing a button". that way they leave the call feeling good about themselves and their abilities even if you've lead them by the hand throughout the call.
by having the player roll their attack dice you're letting the player push a button and then the game takes over and tells him if he succeeds or fails. but he pushed the button. he was the one who did the action.
it's basically applying customer service principals to game design, really, by letting the player think their action affected the result. if it's an attack, then if they succeed it's "hooray, the goblin took damage". if they fail, then they frown a bit but their character is no worse for wear. the character does nothing but gain the feeling of success with little reprocussion for failing the roll.
it also removes the fact that the player doesn't get to fail his saves. with rolling a save, if they succeed at the roll, they're sometimes no worse for wear but in the case of fireball they still take damage. if they fail the roll then they take the brunt of the effect. basically this is subconciously telling the player "you gain little by succeeding and lose a lot if you fail". telling the player to roll a save rarely gets the player to smile, but i've yet to see a player who hated the opportunity to roll a die and see if he fries or dices a goblin.
it's all an illusion in the end, since the player has little way to influence if a dice will be 5 or 15, but if they rolled the dice on an action they initiated, and if they succeed it's their success.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
|
|
|
